1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense

A. (1) Relevant provisions (1) The procedures of the previous trial and the provisions pertaining to the period of filing a lawsuit (see relevant Acts and subordinate statutes), Articles 56(2), 5(1), and 66(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, administrative litigation on a disposition under the Framework Act on National Taxes or the tax-related Acts may not be filed without going through a request for examination or adjudgment under the Framework Act on National Taxes and a decision thereon, and may also be filed against

In addition, according to Articles 66(6) and 61(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, an objection shall be filed within 90 days from the date the relevant disposition is known (when a notice of disposition is received, the date of receipt).

(2) Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act provides that the Civil Procedure Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the calculation of the term, except as otherwise provided. According to Article 170 of the Civil Procedure Act, the calculation of the term shall be governed by the

Article 157 of the Civil Act provides, with respect to the starting point of a period, “the first day of the period shall not be included in the calculation of the period if the period has been fixed as the day, week, month or year. However, this shall not apply if the period begins at midnight.” With respect to the expiration point of the period, Article 159 of the Civil Act provides, “The period shall expire upon the expiration of the last day of the period if the period is fixed as the day, week, month or year.” Article 161 of the Civil Act provides, “If the last day of the period falls on a Saturday or a holiday, the period shall expire on the following day.”

B. (1) The Plaintiff is also engaged in retail sales business of cosmetics from December 2009 to multi-level sales business.

(2) On February 28, 2017 through August 16, 2017, a mid-term regional tax office conducted a consolidated corporate tax investigation with the Plaintiff, and confirmed that the Plaintiff omitted sales from around 2013 to 2016 and confirmed the omission of corporate tax and value-added tax for the pertinent period.